PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 12, 2000
Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 - Establishes an estuary restoration program under which the Secretary of the Army may carry out estuary habitat restoration projects. Sets forth selection criteria, including: (1) Estuary Habitat Restoration Council recommendations; (2) scientific merit of the project; and (3) whether the project will increase Federal, State, and local cooperation, and foster public-private partnerships.Grants priority to projects that: (1) use innovative technology; or (2) occur within a watershed in which there is a program that addresses pollution sources or other activities that would re-impair the restored habitat.Sets forth cost-sharing provisions. Permits a non-governmental organization to serve as the non-Federal interest.(Sec. 5) Establishes the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council, which shall: (1) review project proposals; and (2) develop and periodically review a national restoration strategy.(Sec. 6) Directs the Council to establish an advisory board.(Sec. 7) Directs the Council to develop an estuary restoration strategy which shall provide for the integration of estuary restoration plans, programs, and partnerships.(Sec. 8) Directs the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce to develop an estuary habitat restoration project monitoring database and related monitoring data standards.(Sec. 9) Sets forth reporting requirements.(Sec.10) Authorizes FY 2001 through 2005 appropriations for: (1) technical assistance for estuary restoration activities; and (2) database monitoring. Obligates administrative funds for the Council and advisory board.(Sec. 11) Directs the Secretary to undertake surveys to identify and map dredged material disposal sites.Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a two-year study on the efficacy of bioremediation technology on: (1) low-level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination from recreational boat bilges and stormwater discharges; (2) non-point petroleum hydrocarbon discharges; and (3) use as a first response tool for petroleum hydrocarbon spills.
People & committees
Rep. Gilchrest, Wayne T. [R-MD-1] · R–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7475-7478)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7475-7478)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1775.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7475-7480)
Mr. LaTourette moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 366.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-561, Part II.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-561, Part II.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
House Committee on Resources Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than June 9, 2000.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 106-561, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 106-561, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1775 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1775 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1775 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1775 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.